Shedding light on vulnerability: Intersectional energy planning for development
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, ISSN: 1364-0321, Vol: 211, Page: 115199
2025
- 5Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures5
- Readers5
Article Description
To plan equitable sustainable development interventions, the needs of the most vulnerable in society must be assessed. However, in technical development spaces such as energy systems planning, intersectional needs assessment is often seen as impossible due to a lack of practical methods which use quantitative and categorical data. This study therefore develops a framework for intersectional needs assessment to inform development interventions and applies it in the context of energy planning. It operationalises Collins’ matrix of domination to illuminate the intensity of energy and development needs across vulnerable groups. The framework synthesises acute and chronic vulnerability factors relevant to developing contexts, taking inspiration from both pressure-and-release and social ecology models. It is illustrated through a case study application to a dataset of needs and demographics collected in Siaya County, Kenya. Salient findings in the case study context include: a high prioritisation of solar PV systems by low-trust widowed people; a high prioritisation of money amongst disabled people, who may struggle with energy affordability; and a high prioritisation of motorcycles amongst those with no occupation, pointing towards a need for financial inclusion in the e-mobility transition. Energy-enabled water technologies (e.g., irrigation) are also found to be more highly prioritised during climate shocks than in daily life. The case study results illustrate how the framework can illuminate differences in needs both across and within vulnerable groups.
Bibliographic Details
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know